A new report from Iran’s hawkish Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) suggests the Iranians may be more open to achieving a peaceful resolution to the dispute over their controversial nuclear program than ever before. ”With Obama’s reelection Tuesday, there is guarded hope in Tehran and Washington that a solution agreeable to [...]]]>
A new report from Iran’s hawkish Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) suggests the Iranians may be more open to achieving a peaceful resolution to the dispute over their controversial nuclear program than ever before. ”With Obama’s reelection Tuesday, there is guarded hope in Tehran and Washington that a solution agreeable to all parties in the nuclear standoff might finally be possible”, writes Jason Rezaian in the Washington Post:
The findings in the report suggest that the ministry has a pragmatic understanding of the challenges the country faces, the cost it is paying for continuing uranium enrichment at current levels, the threat of Israeli aggression and, perhaps most important, a way out of the stalemate.
Although the statement refers to Israel as the “Zionist regime,” it is otherwise devoid of the ideological tone that characterizes most ministry reports and that has been the Iranian norm for decades. Instead, the arguments in the 1,200-word report reflect many of the views agreed on by international advocates of a negotiated solution, namely that the potential destruction caused by strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities would set back the program by only a few years at most and that diplomacy is a preferred way forward.
But according to Ali Vaez, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, the Post may be reading too much into the report. ”While Iran’s MOIS report provides a sober analysis of the current standoff, it doesn’t imply a different approach from the strategy Iran has been pursuing during the past decade. All one needs to do is to read the conclusion,” he said.
The conclusion reveals that Iran’s leaders do not fear an attack on their nuclear program because of their belief in the supremacy of Iran’s attack deterrent and self-defense capabilities. It says that war can be avoided through diplomacy or “military preparedness”.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is reportedly likely to engage the Iranian government in direct negotiations in what would be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to head off a military strike on its nuclear facilities in the coming months.
But as Iran scholar Farideh Farhi points out, the key to moving the diplomatic process forward and avoiding a military conflict is flexibility on both sides:
]]>Unless Khamenei and company are given a way out of the mess they have taken Iran into (with some help from the US and company), chances are that we are heading into a war in the same way we headed to war in Iraq. A recent Foreign Affairs article by Ralf Ekeus, the former executive chairman of the UN special Commission on Iraq, and Malfrid-Braut hegghammer, is a good primer on how this could happen.
The reality is that the current sanctions regime does not constitute a stable situation. First, the instability (and instability is different from regime change as we are sadly learning in Syria) it might beget is a constant force for policy re-evaluation on all sides (other members of the P5+1 included). Second, maintaining sanctions require vigilance while egging on the sanctioned regime to become more risk-taking in trying to get around them. This is a formula for war and it will happen if a real effort at compromise is not made. Inflexibility will beget inflexibility.
EA WorldView: Scott Lucas points out that the only named source that we have to back up David Ignatius’s advancing of the claim that Gholam Shakuri “helped organize militant Shiite protesters in Bahrain” is Bahrain’s Foreign [...]]]>
EA WorldView: Scott Lucas points out that the only named source that we have to back up David Ignatius’s advancing of the claim that Gholam Shakuri “helped organize militant Shiite protesters in Bahrain” is Bahrain’s Foreign Minister, Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al-Khalifa. The following is a press release from Bahraini state news:
- Bahrain national intelligence agency has been totally aware of the activities of Gholam Shakuri, an Iranian Al-Quds Force operative who was accused by the US authorities of plotting to assassinate Saudi Ambassador to Washington Adel Al-Jubeir.
“This man is not new to us. Months before the indictment was issued, Bahraini and Saudi intelligence had identified him as an important “Iranian interlocutor” with several members masterminding the coup attempt in Bahrain”, Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al-Khalifa told Washington Post Columnist David Ignatius.
He wondered about the action which would be taken by the US against Iran to show its seriousness after President Obama denounced the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington and warned that Iran “will pay a price”. “We’re asking the U.S. to stand up for its interests and draw the red lines,” Sheikh Khalid said, referring to Iran-sponsored attacks on American forces in Lebanon and Iraq and asked: “How many times have you lost lives, been subject to terrorist activities and yet we haven’t seen any proper response. This is really serious. It’s coming to your shores now.”
Washington Post: Experts are arguing that sanctions and other measures are “exerting a mounting toll” on Iran’s nuclear program:
- “Without question, they have been set back,” said David Albright, president of the institute and a former inspector for the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Although the problems are not fatal for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, they have “hurt Iran’s ability to break out quickly” into the ranks of the world’s nuclear powers, Albright said.
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran’s clerical leaders are seeking to rapidly acquire the technical capability to make nuclear weapons, though there are indications that top officials have not yet firmly committed to building the bomb. Iran maintains that its nuclear intentions are peaceful.
The Weekly Standard: Lee Smith, the senior editor of the Weekly Standard who also works with the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and frequently accuses critics of the U.S.’s “special relationship” with Israel of being anti-Semites uses the killings of Muammar Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein as a pretext for the U.S. implementing regime change in Iran right now:
- One day soon, however, the Iranians will cross the line, and the American president will have no choice but to retaliate—even if the Iranians have the bomb. There won’t be time then for the “collective action” prized by Obama and his deputies. The time for “collective action” is now.
- Collective action does not mean bringing the unmovable Russians and Chinese on board. It means going after Revolutionary Guard camps. It means destabilizing Iran’s ally Syria by creating a no-fly zone there that protects the Syrian opposition and helps bring down Bashar al-Assad. Collective action means using every possible method and tactic to destabilize the Iranian regime by working with allies inside and outside of Iran. It means doing everything possible to ensure that Ayatollah Ali Khameini, stripped of his clerical robes, is the next Middle East dictator dragged from a hole in the ground.
National Review Online: In “Breaking Tehran” anti-Islam extremist Andrew C. McCarthy of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who considers President Obama a “radical leftist” declares that regime change by way of military force should be the driving motivation behind U.S. foreign policy toward Iran after incorrectly stating that all other options have been exhausted. McCarthy also says that Iran’s alleged nuclear weapon ambitions aren’t the real problem:
- The point is that the problem isn’t the nukes, it’s the regime — and while there may be many sites, there is only one regime. Take the regime out, eliminate the world’s most destabilizing and incorrigibly evil force, and the challenge of Iran’s weapons program would get a lot easier. So would such challenges as the future of Iraq; the ground beneath Syria’s execrable Assad regime; and the supply lines of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and the mullahs’ other clients.
Most significant, gone would be today’s worst threat to American national security — a threat that will become only more dire if these rabid, desperate men are permitted to become a nuclear power. That is an eventuality that will come about in short order if we fail to act. It is an eventuality that we should find unacceptable, as this week once again demonstrated. And it can be stopped only by military force; other options have been exhausted, and they only vex the mullahs — they don’t stop them.